Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POPOV AND VOROBYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 1606/02
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 1606/02

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 1606/02

  It is essential that the person concerned should have access to a court and the opportunity to be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation, failing which he will not have been afforded "the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty" (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 60, Series A no. 33, and Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, § 51, Series A no. 107).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 1606/02

  As to the Government's argument that the authorities had no intention of making the applicant suffer, the Court reiterates that although the question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a factor to be taken into account, the absence of any such purpose cannot preclude a finding of violation of Article 3 (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 101, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 1606/02

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-XII; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Dolgova, cited above, §§ 38 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 172 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Rokhlina, cited above, §§ 63 et seq.; Panchenko , cited above, §§ 91 et seq.; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 1606/02

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-XII; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Dolgova, cited above, §§ 38 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 172 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Rokhlina, cited above, §§ 63 et seq.; Panchenko , cited above, §§ 91 et seq.; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 1606/02

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-XII; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Dolgova, cited above, §§ 38 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 172 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Rokhlina, cited above, §§ 63 et seq.; Panchenko , cited above, §§ 91 et seq.; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 1606/02

  It is essential that the person concerned should have access to a court and the opportunity to be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation, failing which he will not have been afforded "the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty" (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 60, Series A no. 33, and Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, § 51, Series A no. 107).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 1606/02

  Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207; see also Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005; Goral v. Poland, no. 38654/97, § 68, 30 October 2003; and Ilijkov, cited above, § 81).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 1606/02

  At the same time, it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 1606/02

  46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 56 et seq., ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

  SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 1606/02

  The Court considers that if a person alleges a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the length of his detention in circumstances such as those in the present case, he complains of a continuing situation, which should be considered as a whole and not divided into separate periods (see, mutatis mutandis, Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 29 and 37, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 43083/06

  ZOLOTAREV c. RUSSIE

  Se référant à l'arrêt Popov et Vorobiev c. Russie (no 1606/02, § 110, 23 avril 2009), le Gouvernement estime que la somme réclamée par le requérant est excessive.
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 35878/08

  PANOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that it has already found a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia, where the domestic courts for various reasons omitted to conduct a judicial review of applicants" detention pending trial (see Sadretdinov v. Russia, no. 17564/06, §§ 88-95, 24 May 2016; G.O. v. Russia, no. 39249/03, §§ 98-101, 18 October 2011; Miminoshvili v. Russia, no. 20197/03, §§ 104-05, 28 June 2011; Popov and Vorobyev v. Russia, no. 1606/02, §§ 93-100, 23 April 2009; Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, §§ 161-63, 9 October 2008; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 122-24, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); and Bednov v. Russia, no. 21153/02, §§ 29-34, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 4320/05

  POLOVINKIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Popov and Vorobyev v. Russia, no. 1606/02, §§ 86-87, 23 April 2009; Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-XII; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; and Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, §§ 63 et seq., 7 April 2005).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 9443/05

  KHACHATRYAN v. RUSSIA

  In the context of Russian cases the Court has previously established that applicants complaining of a lack of medical assistance in State custody should first raise their complaints with the competent domestic authorities, including the administration of the detention facility, the prosecutor and the relevant court (see, most recently, Skorkin v. Russia (dec.), no. 7129/03, 27 September 2011, and Vladimir Sokolov v. Russia, no. 31242/05, §§ 65-71, 29 March 2011; and also Popov and Vorobyev v. Russia, no. 1606/02, §§ 65-67, 23 April 2009; Sopot v. Russia (dec.), no. 4575/07, 16 September 2010; Solovyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 76114/01, 27 September 2007; and Tarariyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 4353/03, 11 October 2005).